Judgment/Order : 1. The revision has arisen out of order dated 02.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sikar, in Criminal Appeal No. (124/2015) 50/2015 (CIS No. 153/2015) whereby the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar in Regular Criminal Case No. 14/2015 with regard to finding the petitioner (accused) being Juvenile, has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Juvenile Justice Board with a direction to decide the application of the complainant afresh after examining all the documents submitted by him giving opportunities of hearing to both the parties. 2. Brief facts essential for disposal of this matter are that complainant/respondent filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar on 24.04.2015 to the effect that police, without making any inquiry as to age of the accused, has filed charge-sheet against him assuming him to be a Juvenile. Thereafter, the matter was committed to Sessions Court for Trial. On objections raised by respondent, learned Juvenile Justice Board after hearing both the parties and relying upon the date of birth mentioned in Secondary School Certificate, issued by Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, held the accused/petitioner as Juvenile and rejected the application/objections of the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred Rules 2007), Certificate of Matriculation or equivalent bearing the date of birth is a conclusive proof of age and only in absence of such certificate/other certificates/documents/medical opinion are to be considered. Learned Trial Court and learned Juvenile Justice Board has rightly believed the secondary school certificate where-from the petitioner was found to be a Juvenile. There was no need of making any further inquiry. In support, he has cited Pradeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2014(1) RCC (Raj.) 256. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no occasion to interfere in the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board and order of remittance for hearing afresh the matter passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law. 5. In support, he has cited Pradeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2014(1) RCC (Raj.) 256. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no occasion to interfere in the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board and order of remittance for hearing afresh the matter passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent submitted that as per Secondary School Certificate, date of birth of the petitioner is 10.07.1998 whereas, as per application submitted by father of the petitioner at the time of first admission in the school and certificate issued by Principal, Agarwal Government Senior Secondary School Guhala, (Sikar), date of birth of the petitioner is 30.07.1994. The application for admission for the first time, in class-Ist was submitted on 02.08.1999. Both these certificates were produced before Learned Juvenile Justice Board along with an application. If the Secondary School Certificate is believed, merely after one year of birth, the petitioner got admission in class-Ist. The documents pertaining to first time admission in the school have remained unrebutted. Learned Board should have conducted inquiry in such an anomalous situation. Section 49 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as Act-2000) mandatorily requires an inquiry with regard to determination of age of the accused. Rule 12 (3) of Rules 2007 is subservient to the provisions of the Act 2000 and it postulates only a procedure for holding an inquiry. In support, learned counsel cited Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. CRLR 2016(2) (SC) 492. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through all the material available on record. Rule 12 (3) of Rules 2007 is subservient to the provisions of the Act 2000 and it postulates only a procedure for holding an inquiry. In support, learned counsel cited Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. CRLR 2016(2) (SC) 492. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through all the material available on record. The Rule 12(3) of Rules 2007 reads as under :- “(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence where; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; an in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. And, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.” 7. In Pradeep Singh’s case (Supra) It has been held that where matriculation certificate is available, there is no need for any court to hold an inquiry but Apex Court has observed in Parag Bhati case (Supra) in Para 28, as follows :- “(28) It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain (Supra), an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is permissible which has been done in the present case.” 8. In the instant matter, learned Juvenile Justice Board without holding an inquiry, which includes recording of evidence, has straightaway held the petitioner as Juvenile, whereas documents submitted before it, such as Secondary School Certificate and application for admission in class-Ist and certificate issued by the Principal of concerned school, were contradictory. Since the unrebutted documents produced by complainant/respondent were in complete contradiction from the Secondary School Certificate produced by the accused, with regard to Date of Birth of the accused, it was mandatory as per Section 49 of the Act 2000, for learned Board to conduct an inquiry as stipulated therein. 9. Apex Court has also held in Parag Bhati’s case (Supra) that if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth, then an inquiry for determination of age of the accused is permissible. 10. In view of above, the impugned order passed by Learned Sessions Judge in the appeal, appears to be correct, legal and in accordance with the propriety. 11. Therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. 12. Since the main petition has been dismissed today, the stay application also stands dismissed.